Apuzzo wrote:The Third Circuit in the Kerchner case, which included Circuit Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Dolores Korman Sloviter, and Maryanne Trump Barry (President Trump’s sister), not only attempted to sanction me for filing an appeal of the District Court’s pro-Obama decision on the issues of standing and political question. It also attempted to tarnish my reputation by suggesting that I committed some ethical violation. Here is what the Third Circuit wrote on July 2, 2010, in Kerchner v. Obama in its footnote 5 regarding N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3:

5. We also note with concern that Appellants failed to cite Berg in their opening brief. See, e.g., N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly … fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client….”). Although Berg was filed only some two months before Appellants’ brief, it is unlikely it had not come to their attention given the identity of the issues.

Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd Cir. 2010).

I was shocked to read about the Court’s “concern” and how the Court misquoted Rule 3.3(a)(3), for the correct text of the rule is as follows:

RPC 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

***

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.
~~~~~

As we can see, the Court when quoting the rule removed the last part of the rule which reads “and not disclosed by opposing counsel” and replaced it with ellipsis. Ellipsis is the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues. So, through its ellipsis, the Court represented that the words, “and not disclosed by opposing counsel,” were superfluous matter or even something to be understood from the remaining context of its statement. But any reasonable reading of the rule reveals that what the Court omitted from the rule is a material element of the rule and that there is nothing in the part of the rule that the Court quoted which would alert the reader that if opposing counsel cited the legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction, there was no violation of the rule. For sure, if opposing counsel cites a legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction, the court is put on notice of that authority and therefore not the least mislead. I cannot imagine why the Court would remove a material part of the rule. Doing so is like a prosecutor removing a material part of a criminal statute and moving forward with a criminal prosecution.

In my 95-page brief, , I explained to the Court that it had unjustly and inappropriately removed this critical material part of the rule when quoting the rule. I explained that the omitted part is a material element of the rule which the Court should not have removed. I further explained that I had stated in my opening brief that there were various cases that had found that plaintiffs did not have standing in the Article II eligibility context, but that those cases were distinguishable from the Kerchner case, that opposing counsel in the Kerchner appeal had specifically cited and discussed the Berg case in their opposition brief, and that I had cited and fully discussed the case in my reply brief. All of that was done before the Court was asked to rule on the matter.

Hence, since opposing counsel specifically cited and discussed the Berg case in their opposition brief and I also cited and discussed it in my reply brief, the Court before ruling in the Kerchner case was fully aware of the Berg decision which incidentally was also written by Circuit Judge Sloviter, who also wrote the Kerchner decision. So, the Court received input by both parties on and had full knowledge of the Berg case before it was asked to decide the Kerchner case. In short, under the complete text of the ethical rule and not that incorrectly quoted by the Court, there was not the slightest violation of Rule 3.3 and no basis whatsoever to hint at any ethical violation.

The Court immediately discharged its Order to Show Cause after receiving my 95-page brief in which I asked for a hearing in open court. . What is disappointing with the Third Circuit’s decision is that, even though I clearly showed the Court the error in and injustice of what it wrote, it did not see fit to correct itself and thereby allows the Obama court record to be historically misleading.

For the noobs: Apuzzo has been peddling his nonsensical "not disclosed by opposing counsel" since 2012. And Apuzzo still "overlooks" that, per the rules, he had a duty to disclose Berg's adverse holding in his opening brief.

Apuzzo remains a mystery to me. My only satisfactory explanation is that he is a racist. I do not see him as concerned on Constitutional grounds.

I pushed Apuzzo very hard in the comments at as I recall was an article at Western Center for Journalism. He posted a stream of invectives against Obama and his policies that showed his true nature. He hates Obama and everything he stands for. I would not be surprised at all if much of what he writes is motivated by racism like about 99% of the Birthers.

Apuzzo remains a mystery to me. My only satisfactory explanation is that he is a racist. I do not see him as concerned on Constitutional grounds.

I pushed Apuzzo very hard in the comments at as I recall was an article at Western Center for Journalism. He posted a stream of invectives against Obama and his policies that showed his true nature. He hates Obama and everything he stands for. I would not be surprised at all if much of what he writes is motivated by racism like about 99% of the Birthers.

Lupin was often mentioning this back in the old days on Doc's blog. I thought back then he might be overemphasizing it a bit, but as the years have gone on, I can see he was right.

Ah... I now am reminded of the good times when Mario and other birthers tried to explain how Lupin did not understand Vattel.

North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Mario wrote:Lupin says that I lie about Vattel and that he actually weakens my position that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country. Lupin says that Vattel supports Obama’s claim that he is a “natural born Citizen.” Others on this blog say that I am crazy for arguing all this Vattel stuff. Well, the historical and legal record shows that I am correct and Lupin and others on here are wrong. Let’s take a look:

The thread, along with the follow-up thread are great fun where Mario goes between telling everybody, including Lupin and Ballantine, that they are wrong to silly insults.

CAN “BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP” BE ABOLISHED BY ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT?

[Somebody wrote some article about birthright citizenship.]

Within Anton’s article is a video inserted by The Washington Post which, citing the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, misinforms that “the Supreme Court ruled that citizenship belonged to everyone born on American soil.” Rather, the decision included the fact that Wong’s parents, at the time of his birth and until 1890, when they departed permanently for China, were “domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.”

* * *

Although correctly stating that Wong began in 1895 after he returned, for the second time, to San Francisco from a visit to China, the caption below the video states that the high court’s decision was issued in “1989.” Published well over a month ago, The Post has had more than ample opportunity to correct its error.

* * *

On Friday, The Post & Email spoke with New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo about the points made in the Salon/Niskanen Center article and whether or not, in his view, a president could issue an executive order with the intent of declaring his interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship section.

* * *

To begin the interview, we asked Apuzzo whether or not modern-day Americans are misinterpreting the meaning of the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. “Does it all hinge on that?” we asked.

“It’s a complex issue,” was Apuzzo’s initial response. “Trying to understand the meaning of those words is very, very involved. There really is no ‘right’ answer, because it all depends on context. You can make those words mean anything you want. If you study the debates on the 14th Amendment, which are in the Congressional Globe, you’ll see how the senators don’t agree with each other as to what it means. Then, they talk about ‘in the sense of that particular constitution, this is what it means.’

He continued:

For example, if you look at Wong Kim Ark, the court said, “It means ‘subject to the laws.'” But then if you read the debates, it says that anybody is subject to the laws, even Indians. The debate there was American Indians and whether or not they should be excluded. Senator Doolittle put forward an amendment to the amendment saying that you have to put the language in there, ‘excluding Indians not taxed.’ The other senator, Sen. Howard, who had put forward that particular citizenship clause, was joined by others, one of whom was Sen. Trumbull, and they all said, “Oh, no, we don’t need that language. It’s clearly understood.” Well, it’s clearly not understood.

So they went on and on, and Trumbull said that it means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction.’ It still doesn’t really tell you what it means. Then there’s further discussion that in this sense of the Constitution, the Indians are not subject to the jurisdiction. So the whole thing is really up in the air; it is what you want to make it to be.

When we asked if the discussions and differing viewpoints of today are little different from the debates of 1868, Apuzzo responded:

What drives the whole thing is policy, and what drives policy? politics. And what drives politics? You can get into all kinds of things driving politics: economics, power; you want to share things with others or you don’t want to share it with others; so the whole thing comes down to politics.

I suspect there was a lot more going on in Congress than what is in the records. If you look at the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it says ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ and it also says, ‘excluding Indians not taxed.’ Later on they say that the Indians are ‘subject to a foreign power,’ so why did they have to add ‘excluding Indians not taxed’? So clearly, when they said, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ they meant somebody else other than the Indians. They’re not telling us that, but I think there’s a clue in the debates that they really were targeting Chinese in California.

The Post & Email: The subtitle of the Salon version of the article reveals that it is posted from a particular point of view. From my standpoint, a major problem today in the media is that almost everything is expressed as an opinion in an attempt to influence the public.[*]

Atty. Apuzzo: It all comes down to politics, and then you make whatever you want to make of it based on your motivation. You spin it the way you want; you include certain facts and don’t include others, whether it’s conscious or subconscious. Some of it is very conscious and very devious; some of it is unconscious.

The question of citizenship is absolutely loaded with policy and politics. You want people you like to become citizens, people who share the same values as you, who will assimilate — you don’t want people to become citizens who violated your laws, who are a threat to your national security, who have no allegiance. That was the idea about the Chinese; they thought they had no connection to the country. It’s shocking if you read the debates – one senator said that when Chinese people died here, their bones were brought back to China on ships…that’s how little connection they thought they had to the country.

The point I think we have to get to is illegal aliens. All this talk about parsing the words – does it have an “or” there, which is in the Anton article – it was his own personal opinion. You can go back to Edward Erler, John Eastman and others, but the one they’re really trashing is Anton. That really doesn’t amount to anything. What it comes down to is politics: should we grant citizenship to the children of people who come here legally and overstay or who come here illegally? It’s a policy question.

When you think about ‘subject to the jurisdiction’: First of all, those who just came across the border entered without permission, and the ones who overstay do so without permission. We have the power to deport those people. Think about it from a policy standpoint: We can deport the parents but give citizenship to their children? It doesn’t make sense. Then why should we reward anybody who comes here or stays here illegally with citizenship for their children? What is the benefit vs. the burden for the nation from doing that?

I think the issue is wide-open for an honest debate as to whether or not the Wong Kim Ark decision should be extended to illegal aliens. The U.S. government said he was not a U.S. citizen because he was born to alien parents, which also raises the question about “natural born Citizen.”

You have “natural born Citizens” and you have citizens. There was no question as to what a natural born Citizen was, but the question was, “What is a citizen?” You have to have citizens before you can have natural born Citizens. The big group is citizens, and certain ones are natural born citizens. Natural born Citizens are those born in the country to parents who are citizens. But the Congress struggled with the question of non-citizen parents during the 14th Amendment debates. They said, “We don’t have a definition of a citizen.” They didn’t say, “We don’t have a definition of ‘natural born Citizen.'” That wasn’t the problem. What do you do with people born here whose parents are not citizens? That was the question; that was the problem.

Of course, Minor also told us that that was in question; they said they had “doubt” under the 14th Amendment as to who was a natural born Citizen, but they said, “We don’t have to answer that because here, we have a natural born Citizen, born in the country to citizen parents.”

If you read the 14th Amendment debates, they ask, “What is subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States?” and the answer was “legislative, judicial and executive.” That’s just on the “government” part. You also have military, political — all these powers going on. But within the government itself, the executive has just as much right to assert jurisdiction over something within the law. He could say, “This is my interpretation…” just as in Wong Kim Ark; that was the government saying he wasn’t a citizen. It wasn’t a court; it wasn’t Congress; it was the executive. And what happened? It went to the Supreme Court.

So what’s my point? If we want to get an answer on the application of citizenship to children of people who came in illegally or overstayed and became illegal or they have no tie to the country, President Trump can sign the executive order, somebody can take it to the Supreme Court, and then you have a ruling on the question. That’s a simple way to resolve it.

The same thing happened with Wong. Nobody said, “The government doesn’t have the power to do this.” That issue wasn’t even discussed. The question was whether or not he was a citizen. Even if you say the president doesn’t have the power, you still have to go to the court. So you get it to the Supreme Court that way. That’s the fastest, easiest way to do this.

Nobody is going to fault Trump, as he has plenty of precedent, plenty of debate and doubt in this whole issue because Wong Kim Ark did not address the question of “illegal aliens.” There was no “illegal alien” at that time. There were no immigration visas, but now we have a different environment, and the laws always have to change according to your environment.

Again, the context, the politics, the policy — it’s a different context now of people coming here and violating our laws. The whole thing is so ironic. You can become a citizen if you’re subject to our laws, but you just violated our laws! So it’s contradictory.

* Says the blogger whose vanity project is nothing but an attempt to influence.

On Monday, The Post & Email published Part 1 of an interview with New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo focusing on the ongoing debate about the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship provision.

Apuzzo has taken on complex citizenship cases in his decades-long career and provided us with an in-depth look at not only the origins of the amendment, but also his view of the reasons for today’s varying interpretations of Congress’s intent at the time.

Our main question, which recurred throughout the hour-long interview, focused on the meaning of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of Section 1 of the amendment. Those words, and the question as to who should be considered a U.S. citizen today, continue to be vigorously debated.

Apuzzo’s response was that different interpretations of the clause and paragraph as a whole arise from “politics.” “The question of citizenship is absolutely loaded with policy and politics,” he said.

* * *

Regarding the stark differences in viewpoint as to the meaning of the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Apuzzo said:

They try to find a motive for why you’re arguing. The Salon article takes aim at “the right,” the “nativists” — they always have to put a label on you. So right away, you have the question of motive or demographics. It’s always driven by politics — whether you’re a “nativist,” a “birther,” a right-winger, a leftist, a socialist…

Some people attacked Rudy Giuliani when he said, “Truth isn’t truth,” but I knew what he meant. Of course truth is truth, but he meant in the sense that when you have a discussion going on and everybody claims they have the truth and then you decide that something is true, how did you decide? Was it because you had more votes, more political power, more military power?

So “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means whatever your politics are, whatever result you want; that’s what it means. Of course, if you want to look at it very simply, if people are in my territory, they’re subject to my jurisdiction. If you look at the debates, they talk about “in the sense of this amendment.”

In immigration law, the phrase “for purposes of this section” is used frequently. Even as far as what naturalization is, they’ll define it and say, “For purposes of this section, naturalization is when you obtain citizenship after birth.” But that’s only for purposes of that section. So naturalization is not just about citizenship after birth; you could be naturalized at birth. The Supreme Court has said that. If you’re born out of the country and you become a citizen at birth, if you apply the definition of naturalization under the immigration laws, that would not be naturalization. But the Supreme Court said, “No, no, no, that’s naturalization” because you need a statute to make you a citizen.

The point I’m making is that definitions are made from context. That’s what happened with “subject to the jurisdiction.” They said, “In the sense of the Constitution, the Indians are not subject to the jurisdiction in the context of the 14th Amendment.” But if you want to go outside the 14th Amendment, of course they’re “subject to the jurisdiction;” they’re here. But some senators said we could not enforce our laws against them, while others said, “Of course, if they commit a crime, we can enforce our laws.” You can see how vague the whole thing is.

Of the general understanding of “citizenship,” Apuzzo explained:

Natural law, “The Law of Nations,” says a nation is sovereign, which means it can admit or exclude people for the good of the whole, and your representatives decide who’s good and who’s bad. That’s your sovereign right. That changes over time. You always have to consider the context and the times that you live in, but you have to protect yourself in the present. You can’t go back to the past and say, “Oh, we didn’t need that,” or into the future and say, “Oh, well, that’s going to be OK.” You’re alive now; people are alive now; you have to protect them now. Whatever happened in the past or might happen in the future doesn’t matter.

Of the question of whether or not children born in the United States to parents who entered illegally are to be considered “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, Apuzzo responded:

It’s a fair discussion, very fair, because again, in Wong Kim Ark there was no question about his parents being here illegally, but rather, “Should he be a citizen?” His parents were “domiciled” here; they were working in California. They weren’t foreign diplomats, which makes it easier, although not as easy as the American Indians. That issue is really complicated because they couldn’t even agree in Congress whether or not Indians should be citizens. Some of the senators agreed with having to put in “and Indians not taxed” but said that “Indians should be citizens.” Some of the others were saying, “No, they’re not citizens.”

The Post & Email: But Indians are their own nations, correct?

Atty. Apuzzo: Yes, but it gets more complicated. Senator Trumbull said, “Oh, but we’re only talking about the Indians in the territories, the ones who roam the plains, the wild ones. The ‘civilized’ ones are OK.”

The Post & Email: Do you agree with Victor Davis Hanson that President Trump — or any president — could issue a “clarification” of the 14th Amendment?

Atty. Apuzzo: Yes, he can do that. Trump could say in an executive order, “This is my interpretation of the 14th Amendment.” With this question of “subject to the jurisdiction,” is he violating the law by stating his position? He’s not violating the law because there’s no Supreme Court precedent saying that if you’re here illegally and you give birth, that child is a citizen. So if he did that, he wouldn’t be violating anything. It’s a fair interpretation given the current context when you have illegals here giving birth to children. The question is, “Should the nation accept those children as citizens?” So I think it would be fine if Trump signed an executive order and it went to the Supreme Court and they issued a decision.

The Post & Email: Would that equate to Obama’s executive action creating DACA? Is it the same thing?

Atty. Apuzzo: Actually, DACA is much worse. Congress has laws on the books which say that if you’re here illegally, you’re subject to deportation (or “removal,” as it’s now called). But Obama’s executive order said, “Oh, no, we’re not going to do that.” The law is cleaner; it says if you’re here illegally and have no status, you have to go back to your country of origin.

The child is not going to be stateless; he or she would take on the citizenship of the parents. Also, in regard to separation of families, the parents have no business staying here. So there’s no evil going on; there’s no harm being done. The parents have a country.

The other questions about asylum are governed by a different law. If they qualify for asylum because of political, religious, or some other kind of persecution, they qualify to be here because that’s what the law says. The laws of our nation say they can be here. If they’re here under those circumstances and give birth to children, I can see the children becoming citizens because they’ve become part of our nation.

It doesn’t matter where they come from; if they qualify under our laws, then of course if their children are born here, I don’t see a problem with making them citizens. You want the children to grow, attach to the nation, be part of the community, go to school, and love their country. That’s how societies are built. But if the parents are here under other circumstances, I think giving citizenship to the children creates more problems than it solves. It creates anger within the children; they become angry at the nation where their parents have to live in the shadows, and they start to blame the nation for all of the problems they experience.

The Post & Email: Can Congress clarify “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to settle this question?

Atty. Apuzzo: Under the 14th Amendment’s Section 5, it says, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” There, they can actually define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means in the context. They could pass legislation. Somebody could say, though, “You can’t to that; you’re trying to amend the Constitution.” Then the Supreme Court would have to look at it.

Also, in Article I, it says that Congress has the power to pass legislation defining different things. Take the American Indians: it was 1924 when they made them citizens with a statute. If you go back to the 14th Amendment, it says they’re not citizens, but if that’s what the 14th Amendment says, then the Congress acted “illegally.” But nobody ever says, “They can’t do that.” If you go back to the 14th amendment, the whole debate was about how Indians were not citizens. So if the Constitution says American Indians are not citizens, how dare the Congress pass a statute saying they’re citizens?

If you look at Article I, Section 8, clause 4, it says that Congress has the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” throughout the United States. That gives them a lot of power over naturalization. The question is, “What’s naturalization?” If you look at the 14th Amendment, that naturalized people. If you read the debates it talks about “Indians not taxed.” But if the state decided to tax you, then the state has actually naturalized that Indian. So now you’ve become a citizen. So the argument is that the state was naturalizing people.

The 14th Amendment was really a naturalization of freedmen, of freed slaves who were not citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 naturalized them. They were naturalized, even though they were born here. So then if Congress has the power of naturalization, they can surely tell us what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. They can do it under Article I and under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which says, “Congress shall have the power to enforce…”

The Post & Email: Is the Supreme Court the final word on any “appropriate legislation” Congress might pass?

Atty. Apuzzo: Here’s the philosophical answer to your question: There is no final word. It’s a circle. It goes around and around and around. How quickly it goes around is a different question. It could go around in just one year, or 200 years could pass, or 500 years could pass. There’s never a final word. There are always new people in office, new citizens with different ideas. The way our Constitution works is that it’s a circle, because even if the Supreme Court rules, the people can pass a constitutional amendment. It happened with the Dred Scott case, when the Supreme Court said that freed slaves are not citizens. So what did they do? They passed a statute which was questionably constitutional, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. They say that was one of the reasons they passed the 14th Amendment, but we don’t know. But Dred Scott was then gone. So now, even though they passed the 14th Amendment, we’re attacking it, so to speak. It goes to the Supreme Court again; they rule, then there’s another amendment. There’s never a final word.

The only finality is that whichever institution does something, it will be good for a certain amount of years. So it might be good for my whole lifetime or three lifetimes. But philosophically, it’s never going to be the end. How long does it last? If the Supreme Court does something, it’s going to last for a pretty long time. But times can change.

We’ve been arguing this issue of what a citizen is for centuries. I think it comes down to context and politics; we have to make a policy decision. Citizenship has a tremendous meaning for a republic: who is able to assert political power. It’s like shareholders of a corporation; how they vote determines the life or death of that corporation. That’s what we’re talking about here: the shareholders of a corporation. So you’re talking about your survival, self-preservation as Vattel put it so well. In fact, the first duty of a nation is self-preservation. It’s the duty of every person. The nation is really a reflection of a person. What is your first duty?

If you look at the safety rules for airplanes, it says the oxygen mask will come down. And what do they say? “Make sure you put it on yourself first before you try to help others.” That’s a powerful metaphor. You can’t help others if you’re dying yourself. Your first duty is to yourself, to preserve yourself; then you can preserve others.

So the nation has to preserve itself. Who becomes a member of that society: that’s really the issue here. Who are going to be our shareholders? Who will vote and continue the values and traditions of America as a constitutional republic? Are we a nation of laws or not? That’s really there; we’re supposed to be a nation of laws, but we have people who just come in and they don’t care. And then they’re going to protest that they have rights…

Either we have laws or we don’t. If we don’t like the laws, we should change them. By changing them, we’re still a nation of laws. But when you start to parse words and play politics, people lose faith, and when the people lose faith, you have a big problem on your hands. It’s like consumers; if they don’t have confidence, the economy crashes. The power is in the people.

Can you imagine the force every day when people go out and buy a cup of coffee? Economically, think of what they’re doing for the nation. Think about when they go to work and they’re producing: the farmers are farming, the scientists are studying…the people are really what make the nation. So you really have to address that, and you can’t be playing fast and loose with the people, because once you lose the people, you lose the nation.

Kerchner wrote:A nice flash back in history. I remember those times well. When the lawsuit against Obama & Congress et al was first filed very early in the a.m. on 20 Jan 2009, Inauguration Day and before Obama was sworn in, Attorney Apuzzo received an immediate acknowledgment of the filing and an electronic receipt for the filing fee and the case was assigned by the automated system a docket number and assigned to a judge in Newark NJ. Then much to our surprise later that day in the afternoon the case docket number for our case and judge was re-assigned to another case and our case was issued a new docket number and was re-assigned to Judge Simandle in Trenton NJ. Atty Apuzzo could never get anyone to explain how this happened. But he has the documentary evidence that it did. He even mentioned it in subsequent filings for the case to document that we filed the case before Obama was sworn in and not after. I have always suspected that the case re-docketed and was transferred to Simandle because the “system” operatives wanted to make it look like we filed after Obama took the Oath of Office and also they knew Simandle was in addition to be being a Nader’s Raider that he also was a closet “SDS’er” from his Princeton days (he delivered a eulogy for one of the SDS chapter’s advisors when said professor died) and even though he now was part of the “establishment” and even was appointed by a Republican President to the federal bench, he would still try to help protect Obama and kill the case using legal technicalities available to judges, which he did by ruling the plaintiffs did not have standing. Saul Alinsky told all the SDS’ers to stop taking to the streets to achieve social justice and instead to finish their academic studies and infiltrate all the institutions of power in the nation and in 40-50 years many would rise to the top and the reins of power and gain control from within the government and at that point they could do more to promote the socialist agenda that way. Imo, Simandle was an SDS’er at Princeton and did exactly what Alinsky recommended. He became part of the establishment and the network of former SDS’ers that are now situated in every nook and cranny of our government, institutions, academia, Congress, and media. Their social-justice ideology is still there but for many of them they don’t openly show it. But they still will act to help the network when called upon by the network when needed … such as needing to kill a lawsuit in order to allow the subversion of the true originalist meaning and understanding of the presidential eligibility term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our U.S. Constitution. They all worked together in the Congress, the Courts, big Social Media, and the Main-Stream Media to suppress the truth and allow a usurper to take office for 8 years. And the negative results of that are being uncovered weekly as we learn more and more about the corruption of all our branches of government under Obama, the IRS, FBI, State Dept, and more. Our constitutional republic was stopped from going over a cliff with the election of Donald Trump. Hillary as another follower and student of the Alinsky ways would have taken this country to the point of no return. All JMHO.

* * *

I forgot to mention that it is likely someone in the U.S. government is reading the article from 2009 about Simandle as part of continuing vetting of him since he is on the list of SCOTUS prospects prepared for and at the request of Donald Trump. Before Kavanaugh was selected I tweeted to President Trump my experience in the court system with Judge Simandle and told him I did not believe that Simandle is a true, solid, and reliable conservative a pick as he had pretended to be in his later life in the court system. Imo, if Simandle ever gets on the U.S. Supreme Court he’ll turn into another Justice Sutter on key cases. Again, all JMHO.

Rambo really was 2 tons of stupid. The thing was that debunking his crap really did teach a lot about American law and history, so it was actually useful. His thoughts really were a pretzel though.

Yeah, that's the thing with the birthers. All of the debunkings led to things I never would have known otherwise. Who knew that Jefferson was a Roman Catholic Muslim (it was from a comment of mine in the above link).

Rambo, though causing many to bring out information, was nothing more than a troll. He liked to play word games and attempt to play on emotions of posters. His fun was in causing a stir which is why he would get the most upset when he was banned. I actually don't know where he is completely at, opinion wise, though after his Zimmerman love fest with Squeaky, he does not appear to be far off from his other trolling comments.

North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Apuzzo wrote:[Under] natural law as codified by the law of nations which was incorporated into our national common law, natural born citizens do not need any positive law to acquire that status at birth, for they become such through their birth circumstances alone. Those birth circumstances are birth in the United States to parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of their child's birth. As to others wanting to be "citizens of the United States," they must look to the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Act of Congress, or treaty to be made citizens of the United States, at birth or after birth, as the case may be, but not natural born citizens.

So many of the anti-birthers (including politicians, law professors, scholars, pundits, media commentators, internet commenters, and other undisclosed interested persons), instead of addressing the historical and legal evidence and argument about how the founders and framers defined an Article II "natural born Citizen," simply dismiss the "birther's" position as mere white nationalism, racism, and lunacy. Do they take this position due to laziness, dishonesty, incompetency, or all of the above? When answering this question, remember that the first recent (there are more in history) presidential candidate to be challenged as a non-natural born citizen was Senator John McCain (white), who had Congress pass a resolution stating that he was a natural born citizen.